Fu, Ning wrote:
> Hi, Jan and Peter:
> Thanks for your reply.
> I am not sure if my understanding about SUNW_LOC is correct:
> - Add/Remove of locales are done with a granularity of region.
Yes, this is the current localeadm functionality. Unfortunately, without
completely repackaging all of our content it is not possible to be
granular on a locale level.
> - SUNW_LOC of each package will define what region the package belong to
Not exactly. The SUNW_LOC fields only contain lists of locales. The
mapping of those locales to regions is in a mapping XML file which is
installed with the localeadm package SUNWladm.
> - SUNW_LOC may contain several different locales, say LA, LB, LC for
> one region R at same time
> - As long as (at least) one locale of LA/LB/LC is specified, the
> package will be installed for region R.(If RE forgot to put LC there,
> it doesn't matter, does it?)
The rule for installation is :
So long as SUNW_LOC contains one locale in the region then the package
will be installed.
The rule for removal is :
If the SUNW_LOC field contains one or more locales in the region and
does not contain any locales not in the region then it will be removed.
> - There won't be a package shared by 2 or more regions.
No. There will be packages that provide functionality for more than one
region. However, in a region remove operation, if a package is required
for a locale that is in a region other than the one you are trying to
remove then that package will not be removed.
As an example SUNW5ttf package has a SUNW_LOC field that reads :
So you can see that it contains locale listings from many regions. If
a user attempts to remove Western European region then localeadm would
check the SUNW_LOC field and see that there are listings for Western
European locales but also see that there listings for non Western
European locales. Because there are listings for non Western European
locales, the package would not be removed. This is the desired behaviour.
> If there are no such packages, then the following paragraph can be
> - Considering a package shared by 2 regions, its SUNW_LOC should
> contain LA1/LB1/LC1 and LA2/LB2/LC2 for region R1 and R2 respectively.
> - Let's presume the package is new one from community -- we don't have
> a previous reference. If RE forgot to set SUNW_LOC to LA2(or LB2 or
> LC2), then the package can be installed for region R2 as well.
> - If RE forgot to put all of LA2/LB2/LC2, then the package won't be
> installed for region R2.
OK lets take these scenarios one by one :
- The team responsible for delivering the package forget to put the new
locales from the community in the package SUNW_LOC field
RESULT : Localeadm will not see anything to indicate that the package
contains support for those locales and they will not be added in the
event that the user attempts to install region 2. However, if the user
attempts to install region 1 then the region 1 locales will be
identified and the package will be installed.
> For the last case, we won't be able to detect the error until PCT or
> SCT is conducted?
That is correct. Responsibility for ensuring that the package contains
the correct SUNW_LOC field locales falls to those delivering the package.
Does this answer your questions?
>> Peter.Nugent@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>> Harry Fu wrote:
>>>> 1) Is there a way that a user could know --
>>>> * what packages are installed on the system for a specific locale?
>>>> * what locales are installed on the system for a specific package?
>>>> I am asking it because it seems that the design relies on SUNW_LOC
>>>> field provided by package owners very much. However, I think it is
>>>> likely that some human mistakes may introduce bugs that some
>>>> packages are missed. Then when a user chooses to add a region,
>>>> those packages are not installed. In that case, is there a way to
>>>> identify the issue without extensive testing?
>>> localeadm relies on SUNW_LOC being correct and up to date and I feel
>>> this is the correc tthing to do. If it is not then that is a bug in
>>> the relevant pkginfo file that needs to be fixed.
>>> Damien did a comparison recently of packages per geo/locale in the
>>> current localeadm config file and locales listed in SUNW_LOC and
>>> AFAIK they were pretty close and he filed 1 or 2 bugs against the
>>> relevant pkgs where there were missing entries in SUNW_LOC. I don't
>>> recall what the status is but Damien can tell us more. Thanks for
>>> reminding us about this issue.
>> Just a comment about verification of SUNW_LOC data. The onepager
>> mentions an automated test which will compare new and old localeadm
>> package lists.
>> So, an extensive manual testing will not be necessary here.
00 353 1 8199225
i18n-discuss mailing list